Summary
Proceedings initiated thirteen years after residential land allotments could not be sustained merely because Section 122-C(6) prescribed no limitation period. Suo motu power must be exercised within a reasonable time, assessed on the facts. The alleged forgery lacked an identified factual foundation or attribution to the allottees in the notices. The Court preserved the Collector’s power in properly founded fraud cases while setting aside the impugned orders.
Issues
- Whether absence of a statutory limitation period permitted cancellation proceedings at any time.
- Whether the fraud allegation supplied a sufficient factual foundation here.
- How settled residential use and the Collector’s power in genuine fraud cases affected relief.
Provisions considered
- Section 122-C(6), Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms ActThe Collector’s power to inquire into and cancel irregular allotments, including suo motu inquiry, must be exercised within a reasonable time despite the absence of an express limitation period. Properly founded fraud cases remain examinable. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
Held
- No limitation period was expressly fixed under Section 122-C(6), but that did not permit exercise at any length of time. Reasonableness depends on the statutory scheme, rights, liabilities and facts. Applying Ibrahimpatnam, the Court rejected the view that an unrestricted temporal power followed from legislative silence; it did not adopt the allottees’ suggested fixed three-year period. (¶¶ 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The Lekhpal’s initiating report did not allege fraud against the allottees. The Tehsildar’s later assertion of forged approval rested on presumed irregularities without explaining the basis for concluding forgery, and no forgery was attributed to the allottees. A bare invocation of fraud could not sustain these proceedings after thirteen years. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The Collector retains power to initiate cancellation where foundational facts disclose fraud, which vitiates proceedings. The cited reasonable-time principle considers discovery of fraud and the circumstances. The decision did not immunise genuinely fraudulent allotments from inquiry; its relief followed the absence of the necessary foundation here. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- The poor and houseless allottees had built homes under the approved allotments and lived there for years. Disturbing that settled position without the required basis would compound injustice and was an additional factor supporting relief. (¶¶ 10, 18)
- The appeal was allowed and the High Court, Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner orders were set aside, subject to the stated observations preserving lawful fraud inquiry. No costs. (¶ 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court and revenue-authority orders set aside, subject to the observations on properly founded fraud cases. No costs.